The distinction between the antecedent and consequent will of God serves as a profound framework for understanding the interplay between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. This distinction, often discussed in theological discourse, seeks to explain how God, as a sovereign and omnipotent being, relates to His creation in a way that accommodates human freedom without compromising His immutable will. Drawing on the arguments presented in "The Anatomy of Arminianism," this essay elucidates these concepts while rooting the discussion in Scripture.
Understanding the Antecedent and Consequent Will of God
The antecedent will of God refers to His general, initial desire for all things to conform to His moral and benevolent purposes. This includes His universal benevolence, as seen in passages like 1 Timothy 2:4, where God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." It reflects God’s revealed will—His commands, precepts, and desires for righteousness and holiness among humanity (Micah 6:8). In contrast, the consequent will of God involves His specific, determined purposes that take into account the reality of human sinfulness and rebellion. This will is aligned with His eternal decrees and reflects His justice, mercy, and sovereign governance over all creation (Ephesians 1:11).
This distinction is not a chronological separation in God’s mind but rather a logical categorization based on His interactions with creation. God’s antecedent will demonstrates His universal goodness, while His consequent will reflects His sovereign decree in light of human response to His commands.
The Theological Challenge of Arminianism
Arminian theology posits that God’s antecedent will can be thwarted by human free will, suggesting a limitation on God’s sovereignty. For example, Arminians may argue that God's desire for all to be saved (antecedent will) is frustrated by human resistance. This view is problematic as it undermines God's immutability and omnipotence. Psalm 115:3 declares, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases," affirming that God's purposes cannot ultimately be hindered by human actions.
Arminianism further asserts that God's consequent will is based on His foreknowledge of human decisions, leading to the claim that election is conditional on foreseen faith. This interpretation contradicts Romans 9:16, which states, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." The Pauline emphasis is clear: salvation is not contingent upon human effort but is solely the result of God’s sovereign grace.
Scriptural Foundations of the Distinction
The antecedent and consequent will of God is supported by numerous scriptural examples. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus laments over Jerusalem, saying, "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" This expresses God's antecedent desire for the salvation of His people. However, the consequent will of God is revealed in His judgment upon Jerusalem for its persistent rebellion (Luke 19:41-44). Here, God’s desire is not overridden but harmonized with His sovereign justice.
Another illustrative example is found in 1 Samuel 15. God declares that He regrets making Saul king (1 Samuel 15:11), which reflects His antecedent will for Saul to lead in obedience and righteousness. However, Saul's disobedience leads to God’s consequent will in rejecting him as king (1 Samuel 15:23). Importantly, this “regret” is anthropomorphic language, accommodating human understanding without implying that God’s ultimate purposes are thwarted. This can be demonstarated when we see another passage a few verses later: "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."(1 Samuel 15:29)
This verse appears alongside the earlier statement in 1 Samuel 15:11, where God expresses that He "regrets" making Saul king. At first glance, these two statements might seem contradictory, but they reflect a profound theological truth. When 1 Samuel 15:11 says, "I regret that I have made Saul king," it conveys God’s response to Saul’s failure in a way that humans can understand. This "regret" does not imply a change in God's eternal decree or purposes but highlights His relational response to human sin. It is an accommodation to human language to communicate the depth of God's displeasure with Saul's disobedience. In 1 Samuel 15:29, Samuel clarifies that "the Glory of Israel" (God) is not like a man who changes his mind. This emphasizes God's immutability—His unchanging nature and purposes. God's ultimate decrees, including the rise and fall of Saul as king, were eternally established and not subject to change. Numbers 23:19 reinforces this truth: "God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind."
The key to understanding these verses lies in recognizing the distinction between God’s eternal decree and His relational interactions within time:
- God's Eternal Decree: God's sovereign plan includes all events, even the rise and fall of Saul. From eternity, God decreed Saul's kingship and his eventual rejection, knowing full well Saul's failures.
- God's Relational Response: As Saul sins, God expresses "regret" in a way that reflects His moral displeasure with sin and communicates His holiness and justice. This relational response does not imply that God’s eternal purposes are altered or that He is taken by surprise.
Thus, 1 Samuel 15:11 and 15:29 complement each other. The former demonstrates God's relational engagement with His creation, while the latter underscores His sovereign and unchanging nature.
God's Sovereignty and Immutability
The doctrine of the antecedent and consequent will safeguards the biblical truth of God’s sovereignty. Unlike human plans that adapt to unforeseen circumstances, God's consequent will flows seamlessly from His eternal decrees. Ephesians 1:11 asserts, "In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will." This text underscores that God’s sovereign purpose encompasses all things, including human sin and rebellion.
Moreover, Numbers 23:19 affirms God’s immutability: "God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind." While Scripture sometimes uses anthropomorphic expressions of God’s “regret” or “disappointment,” these do not indicate a change in His eternal will but rather reflect His relational engagement with creation.
God’s Justice and Mercy in the Consequent Will
The consequent will of God uniquely displays His perfect justice and mercy. Romans 9:22-23 highlights the dual aspects of His will: "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy?" Here, God's consequent will involves both the just punishment of sin and the merciful redemption of His elect.
This duality demonstrates that God’s antecedent desire for righteousness does not nullify His justice. His consequent will, therefore, aligns perfectly with His divine attributes. As a result, God’s justice in punishing sin and His mercy in saving sinners through Christ are harmonized in His eternal decree.
The Harmony of Divine Will and Human Responsibility
While the distinction between the antecedent and consequent will emphasizes God’s sovereignty, it does not absolve humanity of responsibility. Romans 2:6 declares, "He will render to each one according to his works." This covenantal principle reflects the moral accountability of all people under God's antecedent will. However, because all have sinned (Romans 3:23), the consequent will of God ensures that salvation is granted not by works but through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).
This theological framework encourages believers to trust in God's unchanging purposes. It assures them that God’s will is not contingent on human effort but is rooted in His sovereign grace. This is the ultimate comfort for the believer, as Paul writes, "For those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28).
Conclusion
The distinction between the antecedent and consequent will of God provides a robust biblical explanation of how God’s universal benevolence and specific decrees coexist without contradiction. It affirms God’s sovereignty, justice, and mercy while addressing human responsibility. In critiquing Arminian interpretations, this framework upholds the biblical truth that God’s purposes cannot be thwarted. For believers, this doctrine is a source of assurance and confidence in the God who works all things for His glory and their ultimate good.
-----
- by Monergism Answers